Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

At least STAR WARS has that Title Card in the very beginning of all the movies that pronounces itself a fairy tale. Making its case almost water-tight! Which all but defangs - and declaws - any and all criticism, because "Anything Goes" in the land of make-believe. Whereas STAR TREK has this tradition of being so concerned with credibility - particularly with the various television series. But it is something, how Nicholas Meyers lifted quotes and whole pages right out of Mobey Dick - so nakedly, I might add - and to such adulation. Yet, the adulation of his admirers is, perhaps, no less capricious than the disparagement of his detractors in the light of WRATH of KHAN's influence and success - despite being possessed of a plethora of shortcomings ...

As noted again and again, the story--which clearly worked to the base and beyond--restored the drama and adventure to ST that was utterly lost in the wandering, pretentious TMP.

Unlike the common, would-be audience pleasing "flick," TWOK had a monumental task to please two generations of TOS fans--and secure the interest of the general audience. In successfully doing both, ST exists today. There's no way to overestimate its importance to the franchise, as it was balancing on a crumbling cliff after 1979's inflated exercise in pseudo philosophical fantasy.

If TWOK was just another stab at big screen ST with no heart, purpose and feel for its source material, there would be no TSFS - the unfortunate JJ films.

__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."

At least STAR WARS has that Title Card in the very beginning of all the movies that pronounces itself a fairy tale. Making its case almost water-tight! Which all but defangs - and declaws - any and all criticism, because "Anything Goes" in the land of make-believe. Whereas STAR TREK has this tradition of being so concerned with credibility - particularly with the various television series. But it is something, how Nicholas Meyers lifted quotes and whole pages right out of Mobey Dick - so nakedly, I might add - and to such adulation. Yet, the adulation of his admirers is, perhaps, no less capricious than the disparagement of his detractors in the light of WRATH of KHAN's influence and success - despite being possessed of a plethora of shortcomings ...

As noted again and again, the story--which clearly worked to the base and beyond--restored the drama and adventure to ST that was utterly lost in the wandering, pretentious TMP.

Unlike the common, would-be audience pleasing "flick," TWOK had a monumental task to please two generations of TOS fans--and secure the interest of the general audience. In successfully doing both, ST exists today. There's no way to overestimate its importance to the franchise, as it was balancing on a crumbling cliff after 1979's inflated exercise in pseudo philosophical fantasy.

If TWOK was just another stab at big screen ST with no heart, purpose and feel for its source material, there would be no TSFS - the unfortunate JJ films.

I've heard the same argument repeated over and over again all these years: you can have either smart or stupid, but not both.

That answer is wrong. As has been stated countless times a bit of rewriting and thought could have fixed most if not all the logic flaws in TWOK and still delivered all the drama and character the film is lionized for. Intelligence and enthusiasm are not mutually exclusive.

At least STAR WARS has that Title Card in the very beginning of all the movies that pronounces itself a fairy tale. Making its case almost water-tight! Which all but defangs - and declaws - any and all criticism, because "Anything Goes" in the land of make-believe. Whereas STAR TREK has this tradition of being so concerned with credibility - particularly with the various television series. But it is something, how Nicholas Meyers lifted quotes and whole pages right out of Mobey Dick - so nakedly, I might add - and to such adulation. Yet, the adulation of his admirers is, perhaps, no less capricious than the disparagement of his detractors in the light of WRATH of KHAN's influence and success - despite being possessed of a plethora of shortcomings ...

As noted again and again, the story--which clearly worked to the base and beyond--restored the drama and adventure to ST that was utterly lost in the wandering, pretentious TMP.

Unlike the common, would-be audience pleasing "flick," TWOK had a monumental task to please two generations of TOS fans--and secure the interest of the general audience. In successfully doing both, ST exists today. There's no way to overestimate its importance to the franchise, as it was balancing on a crumbling cliff after 1979's inflated exercise in pseudo philosophical fantasy.

If TWOK was just another stab at big screen ST with no heart, purpose and feel for its source material, there would be no TSFS - the unfortunate JJ films.

Well, we did have to suffer the horrid TNG films before the Abramsverse breathed life back into the franchise. 'Life' meaning that it got the general public interested in Star Trek, where it was a niche interest for many years....

However, in a way, Star Trek still is a niche interest with a few interested in looking at the TOS episodes for the first time. And, I attribute that to the lazy writing of the Abrams pictures.

Empire is far from a perfect film. It's my favorite of three (there are only three...since Lucas retired after Jedi... ) in terms of mood and cinematography and acting. The first is the best as a standalone film. The third...well, it's a mess.

__________________

* * *

"There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.
—Will Rogers

Empire is far from a perfect film. It's my favorite of three (there are only three...since Lucas retired after Jedi... ) in terms of mood and cinematography and acting. The first is the best as a standalone film. The third...well, it's a mess.

For me, there are only two Star Wars films.

I tend to tell people, who either haven't seen the SW films or not really familiar with the franchise, to only see the 1st two: A New Hope...and Empire Strikes Back. (Of course, that's my personal recommendation).

Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy

Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Warped9 wrote:

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

As noted again and again, the story--which clearly worked to the base and beyond--restored the drama and adventure to ST that was utterly lost in the wandering, pretentious TMP.

Unlike the common, would-be audience pleasing "flick," TWOK had a monumental task to please two generations of TOS fans--and secure the interest of the general audience. In successfully doing both, ST exists today. There's no way to overestimate its importance to the franchise, as it was balancing on a crumbling cliff after 1979's inflated exercise in pseudo philosophical fantasy.

If TWOK was just another stab at big screen ST with no heart, purpose and feel for its source material, there would be no TSFS - the unfortunate JJ films.

I've heard the same argument repeated over and over again all these years: you can have either smart or stupid, but not both.

As noted again and again, the story--which clearly worked to the base and beyond--restored the drama and adventure to ST that was utterly lost in the wandering, pretentious TMP.

Unlike the common, would-be audience pleasing "flick," TWOK had a monumental task to please two generations of TOS fans--and secure the interest of the general audience. In successfully doing both, ST exists today. There's no way to overestimate its importance to the franchise, as it was balancing on a crumbling cliff after 1979's inflated exercise in pseudo philosophical fantasy.

If TWOK was just another stab at big screen ST with no heart, purpose and feel for its source material, there would be no TSFS - the unfortunate JJ films.

I've heard the same argument repeated over and over again all these years: you can have either smart or stupid, but not both.

I don't think that's what Trek God is saying.

When it's said that something is meant to be illogical then it certainly sounds like it.

I've heard the same argument repeated over and over again all these years: you can have either smart or stupid, but not both.

That answer is wrong. As has been stated countless times a bit of rewriting and thought could have fixed most if not all the logic flaws in TWOK and still delivered all the drama and character the film is lionized for. Intelligence and enthusiasm are not mutually exclusive.

The arguments repeat because they were rendered correct by the reaction in 1982, and its consideration over the decades to follow. The so-called "logic flaws" is a highly questionable criticism, as it did not prevent plot A from linking to B, and so on to a worthy, rational conclusion...with effect. If the film suffered from such alleged "logic flaws"--to THAT fanbase, we would not be on a board discussing the film in 2014.

Respecting the characters, their developed history and why ST became a phenomenon at all (i.e. treatment of its basic hallmarks) is in that film--that was the key to TWOK and franchise survival.

Remember, ST fans (of that era--and I stress that) were not the type who accepted any over-produced, flashy geek-fest that was rammed into 1980's theaters, such as much of the fantasy directed or produced by Spielberg or his company. They expected something that was bigger than life--but the first priority was that the film was in keeping with the clever, thought-provoking sci-fi which defined TOS. Anything less, and ST as a filmed property would have died in 1982.

There would be no third chance, let alone anyone daring to think of another TV series.

So, unless one is willing to attack the fans who were certain TWOK restored ST, you have to accept their knowledge, their insight about what makes ST tick, and what was required to give new life to ST.

__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."

I've heard the same argument repeated over and over again all these years: you can have either smart or stupid, but not both.

That answer is wrong. As has been stated countless times a bit of rewriting and thought could have fixed most if not all the logic flaws in TWOK and still delivered all the drama and character the film is lionized for. Intelligence and enthusiasm are not mutually exclusive.

The arguments repeat because they were rendered correct by the reaction in 1982, and its consideration over the decades to follow. The so-called "logic flaws" are debatable, as it did not prevent plot A from linking to B, and so on to a worthy, rational conclusion...with effect.

Respecting the characters, their developed history and why ST became a phenomenon at all (i.e. treatment of its basic hallmarks) is in that film--that was the key to TWOK and franchise survival.

Remember, ST fans (of that era--and I stress that) were not the type who accepted any over-produced, flashy geek-fest that was rammed into 1980's theaters, such as much of the fantasy directed or produced by Spielberg or his company. They expected something that was bigger than life--but the first priority was that the film was in keeping with the clever, thought-provoking sci-fi which defined TOS. Anything less, and ST as a filmed property would have died in 1982.

There would be no third chance, let alone anyone daring to think of another TV series.

So, unless one is willing to attack the fans who were certain TWOK restored ST, you have to accept their knowledge, their insight about what makes ST tick, and what was required to give new life to ST.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Used to be everyone "knew" the world was flat. And lo and behold all of them were wrong. To say "this is the only way it could have been" is just stubborn denial of other possibilities. Also I don't have to attack anyone, but I can certainly can disagree with their conclusions. And given how most film goers aren't that analytical their consensus is hardly persuasive.

And TWOK hardly saved Star Trek. That had already been done by TMP's financial success. If it hadn't been for that there would have been no TWOK.

...and yet, TMP wasn't exactly the kind of success that inspired sequels to emulate it, which certainly suggests it was a failure in significant ways regardless of how it fared financially.

ETA- I think this statement from the appropriate Wikipedia article might summarize how TMP fared best: "Released in North America on December 7, 1979, Star Trek: The Motion Picture received mixed reviews from critics, many of whom faulted the film for its lack of action and over-reliance on special effects. The final production cost ballooned to approximately $46 million. The film earned $139 million worldwide, falling short of studio expectations but enough for Paramount to propose a cheaper sequel. Roddenberry was forced out of creative control for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan."

If it was in objective terms a financial success, it apparently was not viewed as such by the studio.

__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"

Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...

Re: Nicholas Meyer's Interpretation of Star Trek

Lance wrote:

ATimson wrote:

Warped9 wrote:

Treating the characters that way also didn't work in context of people of the future supposedly living longer. Hell, in TNG Picard has to be pushing 60 and he certainly wasn't ready to park his ass in a rocking chair.

Really? He never left the ship; that was always Riker's job. He did effectively park himself in a rocking chair, it just happened to be on the bridge.

Except in the movies, where he's bounding around opening up cans of whup-ass on his enemies like he thinks he's some kind of septuagenarian Bruce Willis or something.

I would say the point that matters is that while TMP didn't tank it also didn't set a course that TPTB, many critics, and many other people felt the sequels should follow. I suspect if the sequel had been more thematically identical to TMP it might have doomed the franchise, though of course I can only speak in hypothetical terms.

__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"